DOCSLIB.ORG

Foundations of Finsler Spacetimes from the Observers' Viewpoint

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Foundations of Finsler Spacetimes from the Observers' Viewpoint universe Article Foundations of Finsler Spacetimes from the Observers’ Viewpoint Antonio N. Bernal 1, Miguel A. Javaloyes 2 and Miguel Sánchez 1,* 1 Departamento de Geometría y Topología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Granada, Campus Fuentenueva s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain; [email protected] 2 Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad de Murcia, Campus de Espinardo, 30100 Espinardo, Murcia, Spain; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 29 February 2020; Accepted: 13 April 2020; Published: 16 April 2020 Abstract: Physical foundations for relativistic spacetimes are revisited in order to check at what extent Finsler spacetimes lie in their framework. Arguments based on inertial observers (as in the foundations of special relativity and classical mechanics) are shown to correspond with a double linear approximation in the measurement of space and time. While general relativity appears by dropping the first linearization, Finsler spacetimes appear by dropping the second one. The classical Ehlers–Pirani–Schild approach is carefully discussed and shown to be compatible with the Lorentz–Finsler case. The precise mathematical definition of Finsler spacetime is discussed by using the space of observers. Special care is taken in some issues such as the fact that a Lorentz–Finsler metric would be physically measurable only on the causal directions for a cone structure, the implications for models of spacetimes of some apparently innocuous hypotheses on differentiability, or the possibilities of measurement of a varying speed of light. Keywords: Finsler spacetime; Ehlers–Pirani–Schild approach; Lorentz symmetry breaking; very special relativity; signature-changing spacetimes MSC: 53C60; 83D05; 83A05; 83C05 1. Introduction A plethora of alternatives to classical general relativity has been developed since its very beginning. Many of them were motivated by the search of a unified theory which solved disturbing issues of compatibility with quantum mechanics (Kaluza–Klein, M-theory, quantum field gravity, etc.) while, since the 90s, unexpected cosmological measurements led to further alternatives (cosmological constant, quintaessence, theories with varying speed of light, etc.). However, the possibility to consider a Finslerian modification of General Relativity has not settled in mainstream research, and it has been scarcely considered in the literature until recent times (some examples are References [1–15]). Certainly, the generality of Finsler geometry in comparison with the Riemannian setup (namely, analogous to the generality of the convex open subsets of an affine space in comparison with the ellipsoids) is a big drawback, as the number of new variables and parameters would seem immeasurable. Nevertheless, this is similar to the generality of general relativity in comparison with the special one (see Remark 13). Anyway, any Finslerian modification of general relativity would mean to drop the beloved Lorentz invariance not only at global and local levels (as it occurs in general relativity) but also infinitesimally, i.e. looking such an invariance as a limit symmetry around each event. However, from a fundamental viewpoint, this should not seem too strange: as physical measurements are always approximations, one would not be surprised if the symmetries of the models were only approximations to a more complex Universe 2020, 6, 55; doi:10.3390/universe6040055 www.mdpi.com/journal/universe Universe 2020, 6, 55 2 of 39 reality. Indeed, as we will explain, the existence of some symmetries among observers becomes a natural requirement in order to make direct measurements of space and time. There is no reason to assume that the physical reality will satisfy such requirements in an exact way—even though, certainly, the existence of such approximated symmetries are meaningful and useful for modeling. In the present article, a physical motivation to consider Finsler spacetimes as models of space and time is developed and quite a few of related ideas are discussed. We stress the following four guidelines. 1.1. Approach from the Foundations Viewpoint We develop an approach for the foundations of the theories of spacetime starting at the observers viewpoint in classical mechanics and special relativity (Sections2–4). Finsler spacetimes are shown to appear by dropping the symmetries of inertial observers in a natural way. Our approach follows the viewpoint in Reference [16] by López and by two of the authors in Sections2 and3, which includes the celebrated ideas by V. Ignatowski [17,18] about the foundations of special relativity. Specifically, we argue that the geometric models of spacetime appear from the notion of inertial observers by means of a double linearization of the measuring problem, namely, (1) there are inertial frames of reference (IFR) in which changes of coordinates are linear, and (2) the symmetries in the change of the time-like coordinate (and, independently, in the three spacelike ones) between two IFR’s are encoded in that linear structure. These assumptions lead to four classic linear 4-dimensional structures, namely Lorentz–Minkowski, Galilei–Newton, dual Galilei–Newton, and Euclidean (see Section2). Dropping (1) leads from special to general relativity (see Section3) as well as to other transitions for the other three structures. The latter are also briefly explained here, namely, from Galilean to Leibnizian spacetimes (see Section 3.4), including signature changing metrics (see Section 3.1), and the possibility of a pointwise varying speed of light (see Section 3.3). Dropping (2) leads to Lorentz–Minkowski norms and, then, to Finsler spacetimes, discussed both mathematically and physically in Section4. 1.2. Critical Revision of EPS Axiomatics The classical Ehlers, Pirani, and Schild (EPS) approach for general relativity [19,20] will be revisited (see Section5). We show that, certainly, this approach is compatible with the existence of Lorentz–Finsler metrics, a possibility already suggested by Tavakol and Van Den Bergh for Berwald spaces [15] (see the discussion in Section 5.2.5). Such a possibility was ignored in EPS because of a too restrictive development of two steps1, namely: • An artificial requirement of smoothability of some combination of radar coordinates, which would forbid null cone structures incompatible with Lorentzian metrics. This was recently pointed out by Lammërzhal and Perlick’s [11], and it is developed here in detail (see Section 5.2.1). • A deduction of the existence of a projective structure starting at a general version of the law of inertia. This would exclude the time-like pregeodesics for a Lorentz–Finsler metric (except those of Berwald-type), but again, the proof crucially relies on an argument of C2-differentiability, which is related to nontrivial issues on Finslerian metrics (see Section 5.2.2). 1.3. Precise Geometric Framework Along the article, a careful mathematical approach is carried out following Reference [10]. For the convenience of the reader, a brief mathematical summary on (Lorentz) Finsler concepts is also included 1 The reason relies on a classical result for any Finsler metric F: its square F2 is C2 at the zero section if and only if F comes from a Riemannian metric (see Remark5 (1) and Section 5.2). Universe 2020, 6, 55 3 of 39 in Section 4.1. This allows us to model and to discuss issues on Lorentz–Finsler metrics L which turn out to be important from the physical viewpoint such as the following: (1) Causal cone domain (Section4). The physically meaningful domain for L is only the causal cone of a cone structure C. Indeed, even in the classical relativistic case, only the future-directed causal directions for a cone C+ determined by the metric g contains the elements physically measurable for any (true or gedanken) experiment. In relativity, the Lorentzian scalar product gp at each event p is determined + by its value on the cone Cp (or on its time-like directions); therefore, a Lorentz metric g can be determined on the whole TM even if, actually, only its value on C+ can be measured. However, this is not by any means true for a Lorentz–Finsler metric L, where there is a huge freedom to extend the Lorentz–Finsler metric away from C. Therefore, our Lorentz–Finsler metrics will be defined only on a (causal) cone structure2. (2) Smoothness, i.e., differentiability up to some appropriate order. Usually, such a requirement is regarded as a harmless macroscopic approximation to the structure of the spacetime. However, the discussion on EPS above shows that this is not so trivial in the Finslerian case. Furthermore, other issues appear in the literature: • The possibility that the cone is smooth, and the Lorentz–Finsler metric is smooth only on the time-like directions but cannot be smoothly extended to the cone, which happens in metrics such as Bogoslovski in very special relativity [21] and others [22]; see Section 6.1. • The lack of differentiability outside the zero section of Finsler product spacetimes, which may lead to definitions of Finsler static spacetimes which are not smooth in the static direction [2], a fact which can be overcome with our approach to the space of observers; see Section 4.2 (item 5 (b)). (3) Anisotropic speed of light. Finsler spacetimes permit different possibilities for a speed of light which may vary not only with the point (an issue already considered even for relativistic spacetimes, Section 3.3) but also with the direction (Section 6.2). 1.4. Importance of the Space of Observers The relevance of the space of observers in special and general relativity, its links with the symmetries of the spacetime and the possibility to lift relativity to this space have been stressed by several authors [23,24] in the framework of Lorentz violation and Lorentz–Finsler geometry. It is worth emphasizing that the essential role of this space appears explicitly along our development. In the initial discussion of the linearized models, we start with the set S of inertial frames of reference (IFR), which permits even signature changing metrics (Section 3.1).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Why Is M-Theory the Leading Candidate for Theory of Everything?
    Quanta Magazine Why Is M-Theory the Leading Candidate for Theory of Everything? The mother of all string theories passes a litmus test that, so far, no other candidate theory of quantum gravity has been able to match. By Natalie Wolchover It’s not easy being a “theory of everything.” A TOE has the very tough job of fitting gravity into the quantum laws of nature in such a way that, on large scales, gravity looks like curves in the fabric of space-time, as Albert Einstein described in his general theory of relativity. Somehow, space-time curvature emerges as the collective effect of quantized units of gravitational energy — particles known as gravitons. But naive attempts to calculate how gravitons interact result in nonsensical infinities, indicating the need for a deeper understanding of gravity. String theory (or, more technically, M-theory) is often described as the leading candidate for the theory of everything in our universe. But there’s no empirical evidence for it, or for any alternative ideas about how gravity might unify with the rest of the fundamental forces. Why, then, is string/M- theory given the edge over the others? [abstractions] The theory famously posits that gravitons, as well as electrons, photons and everything else, are not point-particles but rather imperceptibly tiny ribbons of energy, or “strings,” that vibrate in different ways. Interest in string theory soared in the mid-1980s, when physicists realized that it gave mathematically consistent descriptions of quantized gravity. But the five known versions of string theory were all “perturbative,” meaning they broke down in some regimes.
    [Show full text]
  • Stochastic Hydrodynamic Analogy of Quantum Mechanics
    The mass lowest limit of a black hole: the hydrodynamic approach to quantum gravity Piero Chiarelli National Council of Research of Italy, Area of Pisa, 56124 Pisa, Moruzzi 1, Italy Interdepartmental Center “E.Piaggio” University of Pisa Phone: +39-050-315-2359 Fax: +39-050-315-2166 Email: [email protected]. Abstract: In this work the quantum gravitational equations are derived by using the quantum hydrodynamic description. The outputs of the work show that the quantum dynamics of the mass distribution inside a black hole can hinder its formation if the mass is smaller than the Planck's one. The quantum-gravitational equations of motion show that the quantum potential generates a repulsive force that opposes itself to the gravitational collapse. The eigenstates in a central symmetric black hole realize themselves when the repulsive force of the quantum potential becomes equal to the gravitational one. The work shows that, in the case of maximum collapse, the mass of the black hole is concentrated inside a sphere whose radius is two times the Compton length of the black hole. The mass minimum is determined requiring that the gravitational radius is bigger than or at least equal to the radius of the state of maximum collapse. PACS: 04.60.-m Keywords: quantum gravity, minimum black hole mass, Planck's mass, quantum Kaluza Klein model 1. Introduction One of the unsolved problems of the theoretical physics is that of unifying the general relativity with the quantum mechanics. The former theory concerns the gravitation dynamics on large cosmological scale in a fully classical ambit, the latter one concerns, mainly, the atomic or sub-atomic quantum phenomena and the fundamental interactions [1-9].
    [Show full text]
  • Entropic Phase Maps in Discrete Quantum Gravity
    entropy Article Entropic Phase Maps in Discrete Quantum Gravity Benjamin F. Dribus Department of Mathematics, William Carey University, 710 William Carey Parkway, Hattiesburg, MS 39401, USA; [email protected] or [email protected]; Tel.: +1-985-285-5821 Received: 26 May 2017; Accepted: 25 June 2017; Published: 30 June 2017 Abstract: Path summation offers a flexible general approach to quantum theory, including quantum gravity. In the latter setting, summation is performed over a space of evolutionary pathways in a history configuration space. Discrete causal histories called acyclic directed sets offer certain advantages over similar models appearing in the literature, such as causal sets. Path summation defined in terms of these histories enables derivation of discrete Schrödinger-type equations describing quantum spacetime dynamics for any suitable choice of algebraic quantities associated with each evolutionary pathway. These quantities, called phases, collectively define a phase map from the space of evolutionary pathways to a target object, such as the unit circle S1 ⊂ C, or an analogue such as S3 or S7. This paper explores the problem of identifying suitable phase maps for discrete quantum gravity, focusing on a class of S1-valued maps defined in terms of “structural increments” of histories, called terminal states. Invariants such as state automorphism groups determine multiplicities of states, and induce families of natural entropy functions. A phase map defined in terms of such a function is called an entropic phase map. The associated dynamical law may be viewed as an abstract combination of Schrödinger’s equation and the second law of thermodynamics. Keywords: quantum gravity; discrete spacetime; causal sets; path summation; entropic gravity 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum General Relativity
    1 An extended zero-energy hypothesis predicting negative GF potential energy. ZEUT explains that, during the the existence of negative-energy gravitons and inflation phase of our universe, energy flows from the (negative energy) GF to the (positive energy) inflation field possibly explaining the accelerated expansion of (IF) so that the total (negative) GF-energy decreases our universe (becoming more negative) and the total (positive) IF-energy increases (becoming more positive): however, the respective * [1] GF/IF energy densities remain constant and opposite since Andrei-Lucian Drăgoi , Independent researcher the region is inflating; consequently, IF explains the (Bucharest, Romania) cancellation between matter (including radiation) and GF DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36245.99044 energies on cosmological scales, which is consistent with * astronomical observations (concordant with the observable Abstract universe being flat) [2]. The negative energy GF and the positive energy matter (and radiation) may exactly cancel out only if our universe is completely flat: such a zero-energy flat This paper proposes an extended (e) zero-energy universe can theoretically last forever. Tryon acknowledged hypothesis (eZEH) starting from the “classical” speculative zero-energy universe hypothesis (ZEUH) (first proposed by that his ZEUT was inspired by the general relativist Peter physicist Pascual Jordan), which mainly states that the total Bergmann, who showed (before Tryon) how a universe could amount of energy in our universe is exactly zero: its amount come from nothing without contradicting ECP (with the 1st of positive energy (in the form of matter and radiation) is law of thermodynamics being also an ECP version). The first exactly canceled out by its negative energy (in the form of documented mention of ZEUH (1934) (in the context of gravity).
    [Show full text]
  • Team Orange General Relativity / Quantum Theory
    Entanglement Propagation in Gravity EPIG Team Orange General Relativity / Quantum Theory Albert Einstein Erwin Schrödinger General Relativity / Quantum Theory Albert Einstein Erwin Schrödinger General Relativity / Quantum Theory String theory Wheeler-DeWitt equation Loop quantum gravity Geometrodynamics Scale Relativity Hořava–Lifshitz gravity Acoustic metric MacDowell–Mansouri action Asymptotic safety in quantum gravity Noncommutative geometry. Euclidean quantum gravity Path-integral based cosmology models Causal dynamical triangulation Regge calculus Causal fermion systems String-nets Causal sets Superfluid vacuum theory Covariant Feynman path integral Supergravity Group field theory Twistor theory E8 Theory Canonical quantum gravity History of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics 1916: Einstein (General Relativity) 1925-1935: Bohr, Schrödinger (Entanglement), Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (Paradox), ... 1964: John Bell (Bell’s Inequality) 1982: Alain Aspect (Violation of Bell’s Inequality) 1916: General Relativity Describes the Universe on large scales “Matter curves space and curved space tells matter how to move!” Testing General Relativity Experimental attempts to probe the validity of general relativity: Test mass Light Bending effect MICROSCOPE Quantum Theory Describes the Universe on atomic and subatomic scales: ● Quantisation ● Wave-particle dualism ● Superposition, Entanglement ● ... 1935: Schrödinger (Entanglement) H V H V 1935: EPR Paradox Quantum theory predicts that states of two (or more) particles can have specific correlation properties violating ‘local realism’ (a local particle cannot depend on properties of an isolated, remote particle) 1964: Testing Quantum Mechanics Bell’s tests: Testing the completeness of quantum mechanics by measuring correlations of entangled photons Coincidence Counts t Coincidence Counts t Accuracy Analysis Single and entangled photons are to be detected and time stamped by single photon detectors.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Theories of Everything Free Download
    3 THEORIES OF EVERYTHING FREE DOWNLOAD Ellis Potter | 122 pages | 20 Jan 2012 | Destinee Media | 9780983276852 | English | Sandpoint, United States Do We Need a Theory of Everything? Axioms tacit assumptions Conceptual framework Epistemology outline Evidence anecdotalscientific Explanations Faith fideism Gnosis Intuition Meaning-making Memory Metaknowledge Methodology Observation Observational learning Perception Reasoning fallaciouslogic Revelation Testimony Tradition folklore Truth consensus theorycriteria World disclosure. A theory of everything TOE [1] or ToEfinal theoryultimate theoryor master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical 3 Theories of Everything of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe. Foundations of Physics. Dec 23, Sven Maakestad rated it it was amazing. You can be assured our editors closely monitor every feedback sent and will take appropriate actions. The vocabul This is a short and approachable book on theological metaphysics. I found it 3 Theories of Everything inspiring and stimulating. It makes the most sense out of the world. So far, this is a purely theoretical problem because with the experiments that we 3 Theories of Everything currently do, we do not need to use quantum gravity. People like Lisi and Weinstein and Wolfram at least remind us that the big programs are not the only thing you can 3 Theories of Everything with math. Previous Chapter Next Chapter. Chapter 3: Theories of VR Sussmann and Vanhegan define VR as a system that has as its goal the complete replication of elements of the physical world with synthesized 3D material. This lent credence to the idea of unifying gauge and gravity interactions, and to extra dimensions, but did not address the detailed experimental requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Let Loop Quantum Gravity and Affine Quantum Gravity Examine Each Other
    Let Loop Quantum Gravity and Affine Quantum Gravity Examine Each Other John R. Klauder∗ Department of Physics and Department of Mathematics University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-8440 Abstract Loop Quantum Gravity is widely developed using canonical quan- tization in an effort to find the correct quantization for gravity. Affine quantization, which is like canonical quantization augmented bounded in one orientation, e.g., a strictly positive coordinate. We open discus- sion using canonical and affine quantizations for two simple problems so each procedure can be understood. That analysis opens a mod- est treatment of quantum gravity gleaned from some typical features that exhibit the profound differences between aspects of seeking the quantum treatment of Einstein’s gravity. 1 Introduction arXiv:2107.07879v1 [gr-qc] 23 May 2021 We begin with two different quantization procedures, and two simple, but distinct, problems one of which is successful and the other one is a failure using both of the quantization procedures. This exercise serves as a prelude to a valid and straightforward quantiza- tion of gravity ∗klauder@ufl.edu 1 1.1 Choosing a canonical quantization The classical variables, p&q, that are elements of a constant zero curvature, better known as Cartesian variables, such as those featured by Dirac [1], are promoted to self-adjoint quantum operators P (= P †) and Q (= Q†), ranged as −∞ <P,Q< ∞, and scaled so that [Q, P ]= i~ 11.1 1.1.1 First canonical example Our example is just the familiar harmonic oscillator, for which −∞ <p,q < ∞ and a Poisson bracket {q,p} = 1, chosen with a parameter-free, classical Hamiltonian, given by H(p, q)=(p2 + q2)/2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lagrangean Hydrodynamic Representation of Dirac Equation
    The Lagrangean Hydrodynamic Representation of Dirac Equation Piero Chiarelli National Council of Research of Italy, Area of Pisa, 56124 Pisa, Moruzzi 1, Italy Interdepartmental Center “E. Piaggio” University of Pisa Abstract This work derives the Lagrangean hydrodynamic representation of the Dirac field that, by using the minimum action principle in the non-Euclidean generalization, can possibly lead to the formulation of the Einstein equation as a function of 1 the fermion field. The paper shows that the bi-spinor field = is equivalent to the mass densities 2 S1 | 1 |exp[i ] 2 2 12 1 || 1 ,|| 2 , where = = = , that move with momenta 2 2 S2 | |exp[i ] 2 pS11= − pS22= − being subject to the non-local interaction of the theory defined quantum potential. The expression of the quantum potential as well as of the hydrodynamic energy-impulse tensor is explicitly derived as a function of the charged fermion field. The generalization to the non-Minkowskian space-time with the definition of the gravitational equation for the classical Dirac field as well as its quantization is outlined. Keywords: Hydrodynamic Form of Dirac Equation, Energy-Impulse Tensor of Charged Fermion Field, Gravity of Classical Charged Fermion Field Volume: 01 Issue: 02 Date of Publication: 2018-08-30 Journal: To physics Journal Website: https://purkh.com This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 146 1. Introduction One of the intriguing problems of the theoretical physics is the integration of the general relativity with the quantum mechanics. The Einstein gravitation has a fully classical ambit, the quantum mechanics mainly concerns the small atomic or sub-atomic scale, and the fundamental interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Mathematical Foundations of Causal Fermion Systems in Minkowski Space
    Ann. Henri Poincar´e 22 (2021), 873–949 c 2020 The Author(s) 1424-0637/21/030873-77 published online November 23, 2020 Annales Henri Poincar´e https://doi.org/10.1007/s00023-020-00983-5 On the Mathematical Foundations of Causal Fermion Systems in Minkowski Space Marco Oppio Abstract. The emergence of the concept of a causal fermion system is revisited and further investigated for the vacuum Dirac equation in Minkowski space. After a brief recap of the Dirac equation and its so- lution space, in order to allow for the effects of a possibly nonstandard structure of spacetime at the Planck scale, a regularization by a smooth cutoff in momentum space is introduced, and its properties are discussed. Given an ensemble of solutions, we recall the construction of a local corre- lation function, which realizes spacetime in terms of operators. It is shown in various situations that the local correlation function maps spacetime points to operators of maximal rank and that it is closed and homeomor- phic onto its image. It is inferred that the corresponding causal fermion systems are regular and have a smooth manifold structure. The cases con- sidered include a Dirac sea vacuum and systems involving a finite number of particles and antiparticles. Contents 1. Introduction 874 2. Standard Results on the Dirac Equation 876 2.1. The Equation and Its Solutions Space 876 2.2. The Hamiltonian Operator and Its Spectral Decomposition 880 2.3. Four-Momentum Representation and the Fermionic Projectors 884 2.4. A Few Words on the Decay Properties of Dirac Solutions 888 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Continuum Limit of Causal Fermion Systems from Planck Scale Structures to Macroscopic Physics Series: Fundamental Theories of Physics
    springer.com Felix Finster The Continuum Limit of Causal Fermion Systems From Planck Scale Structures to Macroscopic Physics Series: Fundamental Theories of Physics First coherent treatment of causal fermion systems Makes the connection to the standard model of elementary particle physics Proposes a mathematical structure of space-time on the Planck scale This monograph introduces the basic concepts of the theory of causal fermion systems, a recent approach to the description of fundamental physics. The theory yieldsquantum mechanics, general relativity and quantum field theory as limiting cases and istherefore a candidate for a unified physical theory. From the mathematical perspective, causal fermion systems provide a general framework for describing and analyzing non-smooth geometries and "quantum geometries". The dynamics is described by a novel variational principle, called the 1st ed. 2016, XI, 548 p. 11 illus. causal action principle. In addition to the basics, the book provides allthe necessary mathematical background and explains how the causal action principle gives rise to the Printed book interactions of the standard model plus gravity on the level of second-quantized fermionic Hardcover fields coupled to classical bosonic fields. The focus is on getting a mathematically sound 109,99 € | £82.00 | $129.00 connection between causal fermion systems and physical systems in Minkowski space. The [1] 117,69 € (D) | 120,99 € (A) | CHF book is intended for graduate students entering the field, and is furthermore a valuable 130,00 reference work for researchers in quantum field theory and quantum gravity. Softcover 109,99 € | £82.00 | $129.00 [1]117,69 € (D) | 120,99 € (A) | CHF 130,00 eBook 93,08 € | £64.99 | $99.00 [2]93,08 € (D) | 93,08 € (A) | CHF 104,00 Available from your library or springer.com/shop MyCopy [3] Printed eBook for just € | $ 24.99 springer.com/mycopy Order online at springer.com / or for the Americas call (toll free) 1-800-SPRINGER / or email us at: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Local Algebras for Causal Fermion Systems in Minkowski Space
    LOCAL ALGEBRAS FOR CAUSAL FERMION SYSTEMS IN MINKOWSKI SPACE FELIX FINSTER AND MARCO OPPIO APRIL 2020 Abstract. A notion of local algebras is introduced in the theory of causal fermion systems. Their properties are studied in the example of the regularized Dirac sea vacuum in Minkowski space. The commutation relations are worked out, and the differences to the canonical commutation relations are discussed. It is shown that the spacetime point operators associated to a Cauchy surface satisfy a time slice axiom. It is proven that the algebra generated by operators in an open set is irreducible as a consequence of Hegerfeldt’s theorem. The light cone structure is recovered by analyzing expectation values of the operators in the algebra in the limit when the regularization is removed. It is shown that every spacetime point operator commutes with the algebras localized away from its null cone, up to small corrections involving the regularization length. Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Preliminaries 4 2.1. Basics on Causal Fermion Systems 4 2.2. The Dirac Equation in Minkowski Space 5 2.3. Regularization by a Smooth Cutoff in Momentum Space 7 2.4. The Kernel of the Fermionic Projector 7 2.5. Basics on the Continuum Limit Analysis with iε-Regularization 12 2.6. Causal Fermion Systems in Minkowski Space 15 3. Local Algebras for Causal Fermions Systems 17 3.1. Definition of the Local Algebras 17 3.2. The Commutation Relations 19 arXiv:2004.00419v2 [math-ph] 16 Nov 2020 4. Regularized Local Algebras in Minkowski Space 20 4.1. The Local Set of Spacetime Operators and the Time Slice Axiom 20 4.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Causal Fermion Systems and the Eth Approach to Quantum Theory
    DISCRETE AND CONTINUOUS doi:10.3934/dcdss.2020451 DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS SERIES S Volume 14, Number 5, May 2021 pp. 1717–1746 CAUSAL FERMION SYSTEMS AND THE ETH APPROACH TO QUANTUM THEORY Felix Finster˚ Fakult¨at f¨ur Mathematik, Universit¨at Regensburg D-93040 Regensburg, Germany Jurg¨ Frohlich¨ Institute of Theoretical Physics ETH Zurich, Switzerland Marco Oppio Fakult¨at f¨ur Mathematik, Universit¨at Regensburg D-93040 Regensburg, Germany Claudio F. Paganini Fakult¨at f¨ur Mathematik, Universit¨at Regensburg D-93040 Regensburg, Germany and Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute) Am M¨uhlenberg 1, D-14476 Potsdam, Germany Abstract. After reviewing the theory of “causal fermion systems” (CFS the- ory) and the “Events, Trees, and Histories Approach” to quantum theory (ETH approach), we compare some of the mathematical structures underlying these two general frameworks and discuss similarities and differences. For causal fermion systems, we introduce future algebras based on causal relations inher- ent to a causal fermion system. These algebras are analogous to the algebras previously introduced in the ETH approach. We then show that the spacetime points of a causal fermion system have properties similar to those of “events”, as defined in the ETH approach. Our discussion is underpinned by a survey of results on causal fermion systems describing Minkowski space that show that an operator representing a spacetime point commutes with the algebra in its causal future, up to tiny corrections that depend on a regularization length. 1. Introduction. Two fundamental problems in theoretical physics are (1) to find a formulation of quantum theory (QT) incorporating a precise notion of events that leads to a solution of the so-called measurement problem and (2) to construct a theory unifying General Relativity (GR) and the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics.
    [Show full text]